From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2003 - 09:00:43 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
>
> Yes, why is iconoclasm so fun? To some extent it is
> because it is easy attention from others - if you can
> take some criticism, then you can mine it for all its
> worth. Then there is the thrill of questioning the
> unquestionable - but why do we get it? Tetlock's theory
> only explain why people refrain from doing it, not why
> some people delight in it.
### Perhaps iconoclasm is one of the rare but viable strategies for
rejecting reproductively detrimental social control. Our forefathers'
brothers who didn't internalize tribal norms at all were ostracized and
didn't reproduce, but the ones who accepted norms unquestioningly
("swallowed it hook, line and sinker"), were easy prey for deceptive,
self-deceptive, or even (internally) honest purveyors of reproductively
limiting mores. Those who can selectively reject social conditioning,
without descending into the chaos of the antisocial or borderline
personality disorders, can survive in the society better than the other two
strategies (a.k.a. thugs and sheeple), although it's possible that a high
concentration of iconoclasts interferes with social cohesion, and this could
explain our low numbers.
The cases of the Skoptsy, and Shakers, come to mind here. Skoptsy were
members of a Russian religious sect, who swore off sex altogether, and by
castration and mastectomy made sure they couldn't change their minds.
Shakers, as you may well know, had a similar set of memes, although with
less gruesome implementation.
Only the iconoclastic Skoptsy and Shakers contributed to today's gene pools.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 09 2003 - 09:10:10 MDT